At Tue, 2 Jun 2009 21:15:29 +0300, Jukka Marin
<jmarin%embedtronics.fi@localhost> wrote:
Subject: Re: NFS
>
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 07:06:50PM +0200, Michai Ramakers wrote:
> > both client- and server-machines are NetBSD 4.0_STABLE; my mount
> > options happen to be rw,-T,-i,-l,-r=65536,-w=65536
>
> I'm using -T now, so far so good (doesn't prove anything yet ;-)
I've run NFS for various combinations of NetBSD machines for a long time
now too, and so long as nothing goes wrong with the server (e.g. it
needing a reboot for unrelated reasons) I've generally not had many
problems. My systems have been either sparc, alpha, or i386 (and sun3 a
very long time ago). While older releases (including 1.6.x) have
generally had more networking problems overall, 4.x has been quite good.
The only thing I really don't like about NetBSD NFS is the complete lack
of client-side kernel file locking support, even though there's
apparently been an implementation ready to go for several years now
(locking can incite many new issues though, as I've discovered when
trying to use it from a Mac OS X client -- because the Finder.app is way
over-zealous with locking I've had to disable use of NFS locking when
mounting my NetBSD-served home directory onto my Mac).
> server:/home /home nfs rw,-X,-i,-b,-s,-C,-x16 0 0
My home directories are mounted with "-b,-i,rw,nodev,nosuid", though on
my disk-less clients I use "rw,nosuid,nodev" and just "rw" for the root
filesystem. I.e. I don't use the "-b" and especially not the "-i"
options on critical filesystems, e.g. where executables live, etc.
If I were you I would first get rid of "-X" -- it's not listed as stable
and I've never even tried it. It may be a nice idea in theory, but....
I have considered using soft mounts ("-s") for some systems as well,
especially the non-critical side of systems with cross-mounted
partitions, but as yet I have not experimented with them, and it may
even be that they don't work right either. Try without.
You'll note that I don't use "-r" or "-w". As the manual page says you
primarily only want to use larger values for UDP mount points when
"netstat -s" is showing "fragments dropped after timeout" growing on the
client and/or server.
I've experimented briefly with TCP mounts, but on my local ethernet I've
never found them to be necessary. IIRC, I did even have some problems
with TCP mounts behaving more weirdly when systems had to be rebooted
for unrelated reasons.
BTW, I _never_ use AMD any more either -- besides just being generally
buggy and fragile in my experience, it is completely antithetical to the
way I prefer to administer shared filesystems.
--
Greg A. Woods
Planix, Inc.
<woods%planix.com@localhost> +1 416 218-0099 http://www.planix.com/
Attachment:
pgpCf81oC4vpi.pgp
Description: PGP signature